The perorations of various sections of the משנה תורה have long been recognized as opportunities for the astute student of the work to peer into the Maimonidean mind, as they often share ethical and philosophical insights that go beyond the nitty-gritty details of the הלכות that have been presented. Some of these ending notes are more straightforward, while others demand careful and close attention to discover the directive or intended intimation of the passage. One of the more challenging of such sections is the end of הלכות מגילה, which has attracted a large deal of study and speculation.

All the books of the Prophets and all the Holy Writings will be nullified in the Messianic era, with the exception of the Book of Esther. It will continue to exist, as will the five books of the Torah and the halachotof the Oral Law, which will never be nullified. Although all memories of the difficulties endured by our people will be nullified, as Isaiah 65:16 states: “For the former difficulties will be forgotten and for they will be hidden from My eye,” the celebration of the days of Purim will not be nullified, as Esther 9:28 states: “And these days of Purim will not pass from among the Jews, nor will their remembrance cease from their seed.” (Translation: Moznaim)

The source for this strange Maimonidean statement may be found in the Palestinian Talmud.

Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Levi: Rabbi Yochanan said: the Prophetic books and the Hagiographical books are to be nullified in the future, while the Pentateuch will not be nullified in the future. What is the reason? “[The Lord spoke those words]—those and no more—[to your whole congregation at the mountain, with] a mighty voice [out of the fire and the dense clouds.]” (Deuteronomy 5:19, JPS trans.) Rabbi Shimon ben Levi said: Even the Book of Esther and halachot will not be nullified in the future. It says there, “…those and no more… a mighty voice…” while it says later “and the memory of [these days of Purim] shall never perish among [the Jews’] descendents.” (Esther 9:28, JPS trans.) [Regarding] halachot: “the ways (halichot) are forever to Him.” (Habakkuk 3:6) (Translation: E.M.S.)

That רמב”ם, despite his documented proclivity and predilection for the ירושלמי,[8] chose to incorporate this radical midrashic motif into his discussion of פורים is baffling. What does it mean that נ”ך will become “בטל”? And what does the phrase “the days of פורים will not be nullified” signify? Additionally, the assertion that most of נ”ך will be irrelevant (at the least) in the eschaton is slightly incongruous with רמב”ם’s rationalistic, naturalistic conception of ימות המשיח.[9] Not only is the simple meaning of this passage abstruse, but, more significantly, it is difficult to understand רמב”ם’s specific motivation in including this מדרש into the משנה תורה. Though רמב”ם maintained that אגדה was not to be taken literally,[10] he incorporated aggadic selections throughout the משנה תורה when they bolstered his point.[11] Consequently, it behooves us to understand רמב”ם’s intent in this passage. First, we will examine the reactions of the traditional commentators to this רמב”ם.

B.The Classical Commentators

Chronologically, the history of the interpretation of this passage begins with ראב”ד.

Not a single thing from any book will be nullified, since there is no book without academic value. Rather, the following is what [our Sages] said: that although the rest of the books of the Bible will no longer be read, the Book of Esther will never cease to be read in public. (Translation: E.M.S)

ראב”ד’s animadversion does not seek to explicate the difficult רמב”ם and is more concerned with the meaning of the original passage in the ירושלמי.

It appears that [Rabad’s] intention is that he understood in our master’s words that he meant that the Prophetic books will be totally nullified, and no one will learn from them any possible thing, and it would be as if they did not exist. And [Rabad] said that this cannot be correct, since from every book we learn out many laws, and if [Rambam’s claim is accurate], those laws would become nullified. This is what [Rabad] meant when he said “there is no book without exegetical derivations,” and thus he said that that the intent [of the Sages] was not as our Master has written, that [such books] would be hidden. Rather, they will still be extant. Rather, although they will not be read from constantly, rather at far off intervals, nevertheless the Book of Esther will continue to be read. (Translation: E.M.S)

לחם משנה’s explication of ראב”ד’s understanding of רמב”ם and the גמרא does not have any textual support, though it does render רמב”ם’s own statement less logically perplexing.

[Rambam’s statement is derived] from a midrash, and there is an animadversion [from Rabad.] And if [Rambam’s] intent is as he stated regarding the messianic era, then the truth will tell whether or not he is correct.(Translation: E.M.S)

Unfortunately, none of the classical commentators assist the reader in understanding רמב”ם’s intent in this strange passage.

C. A New Suggestion

To find a satisfactory explanation for the רמב”ם at the end of הלכות מגילה, we must look to the רמב”ם at the beginning of הלכות מגילה.[13]

It is a positive mitzvah ordained by the Rabbis to read the Megillahat the appointed time. It is well-known that this was ordained by the Prophets. Everyone is obligated in this reading: men, women, converts, and freed slaves. Children should also be trained to read it. Even the priests should neglect their service in the Temple and come to hear the reading of the Megillah. Similarly, Torah study should be neglected to hear the reading of the Megillah. Surely, this applies to the other mitzvot of the Torah: the observance of all of them is superseded by the reading of the Megillah. There is nothing that takes priority over the reading of the Megillah except the burial of a meitmitzvah- a corpse that has no one to take care of it. A person who encounters such a corpse should bury it and then read the Megillah. (Translation: Moznaim)

This formulation is noteworthy in its emphasis on the scope of the חיוב—which individuals are obligated to recite the מגילה—and on the relative power of the חיוב—which other commandments are superseded by קריאת המגילה. It seems that the רמב”ם was particularly concerned with the חיוב itself, since he usually first describes the essential character of a מצוה first, and only after does he delineate the scope of the חיוב or what the חיוב trumps.[14]

From the passages at the beginning and end of הלכות מגילה, we see that רמב”ם was focused on the nature and essence of the חיוב מקרא מגילה. The enduring, immutable חיוב of מקרא מגילה and the holiday of פורים itself are stressed in the end of הלכות מגילה, and the scope of the חיוב and its powerful nature are accentuated in its beginning. רמב”ם simply cited the מדרש since it supported his preoccupation with the חיוב of מקרא מגילה.

The question now becomes why רמב”ם was so focused on the weighty nature of פורים and the חיוב מקרא מגילה in the first place. I would like to suggest that רמב”ם is responding to the classic problem with פורים and the reading of the מגילה. Namely, the entire enterprise of establishing קריאת המגילה was highly precarious from a halachic-jurisprudential perspective. What exactly was the justification for creating a new holiday with its own “מצוה”? Prima facie, this type of Rabbinic enactment should be prohibited as בל תוסיף.

The challenge of פורים to בל תוסיף is reflected most starkly in a ברייתא in the בבלי and a מימרא in the ירושלמי.

Our Rabbis taught: Forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses prophesied to the Jews, and they did not diminish from nor augment that which is written in the Torah, excepting [the mitzvah of] reading the Megilla.(Translation: E.M.S.)

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Eighty-five elders, and among them thirty and some-odd prophets, were distressed regarding this matter. They said: it is written: “These are the commandments that the Lord gave Moses,” (Leviticus 27:34, JPS trans.) these are the commandments regarding which we have been commanded by Moses. And thus said to us Moses: A future prophet is not allowed to innovate for you anything new. And Mordecai and Esther are seeking to innovate something new for us?! They did not move from there discussing and debating the matter until God enlightened them and they found [the command to read the Megillah written in the Pentateuch, the Prophetic books, and the Hagiographical books... (Translation: E.M.S.)

These sources admit that the institution of קריאת המגילה was unprecedented and particularly challenging from a legal perspective.

Now that we can see the texts to which רמב"ם was reacting, we can understand his precise intent and meaning. רמב"ם wished to accentuate that פורים and מקרא מגילה are justifiable since חז"ל are, indeed, given the power to innovate commandments, even those that do not directly act to safeguard currently existing Biblical precepts, so long as they are not claimed to be Scriptural. This idea was a major one in the Maimonidean system since it validated and vindicated Rabbinic Judaism. רמב"ם explains this doctrine in two main places, in the opening section of הלכות ממרים and in a short section of the introduction to theמשנה תורה, nestled between the enumeration of theתרי"גand the programmatic listing of the various sections of the משנה תורה.

The Supreme Sanhedrin in Jerusalem are the essence of the Oral Law. They are the pillars of instruction from whom statutes and judgments issue forth for the entire Jewish people. Concerning them, the Torah promises Deuteronomy 17:11: “You shall do according to the laws which they shall instruct you….” This is a positive commandment. Whoever believes in Moses and in his Torah is obligated to make all of his religious acts dependent on this court and to rely on them.

Any person who does not carry out their directives transgresses a negative commandment, as Ibid. continues: “Do not deviate from any of the statements they relate to you, neither right nor left.” Lashes are not given for the violation of this prohibition, because it also serves as a warning for a transgression punishable by execution by the court. For when a sage rebels against the words of the court, he should be executed by strangulation, as the following verse states: “A person who will act deliberately….” We are obligated to heed their words whether they: a) learned them from the Oral Tradition, i.e., the Oral Law, b) derived them on the basis of their own knowledge through one of the attributes of Biblical exegesis and it appeared to them that this is the correct interpretation of the matter, c) instituted the matter as a safeguard for the Torah, as was necessary at a specific time. These are the decrees, edicts, and customs instituted by the Sages. It is a positive commandment to heed the court with regard to each of these three matters. A person who transgresses any of these types of directives transgresses a negative commandment. This is derived from the continuation of the above verse in the following manner: “According to the laws which they shall instruct you”— this refers to the edicts, decrees, and customs which they instruct people at large to observe to strengthen the faith and perfect the world. “According to the judgment which they relate” —this refers to the matters which they derive through logical analysis employing one of the methods of Biblical exegesis. “From all things that they will tell you” —This refers to the tradition which they received one person from another. (Translation: Moznaim)

There are [also] other commandments that were instituted after the giving of the Torah. They were established by the Prophets and Sages and spread throughout Israel, for example, the reading of the Megillah, [lighting] a Chanukah candle, fasting on Tish’ah b’Av, [setting up] eruvim, and [washing one‘s] hands [in preparation for prayer and eating]. Each of these commandments also possesses explanatory aspects and details. All of this will be explained in this text. We are obligated to accept and observe all these commandments which [the Rabbis] instituted, as [implied by Deuteronomy 17:11]: “Do not deviate from the instructions that they will give you, left or right.” They are not considered to be additions to the commandments of the Torah. [If so,] what was the intention of the Torah’s warning (Deuteronomy 13:11): “Do not add to it and do not detract from it”? That a prophet is not permitted to introduce a new measure and say that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded this mitzvah to us and that it should be added to the Torah’s mitzvot, or [say that He commanded that we] eliminate one of the 613 mitzvot mentioned above. However, if a court, together with the prophet of that age, adds a commandment as an ordinance, a lesson, or as a decree, this is not considered as an addition. He is not saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us to make an eruv or read the Megillah at its [appointed] time. Were he to say so, he would be adding to the Torah. Instead, we are saying that the prophets and the courts ordained and commanded that the Megillah be read at its [appointed] time in order to recall the praise of the Holy One, blessed be He, the salvation He wrought for us, and His response to our cries, so that we will bless Him, extol Him, and inform the future generations of the truth of the Torah’s promise (Deuteronomy 4:7): “What nation is so great that it has God [close to it....]” Similar principles apply with regard to all the other Rabbinic commandments, be they positive commandments or negative commandments. (Translation: Moznaim)

This latter passage forcefully argues that קריאתהמגילה is not a violation of בלתוסיףand that we must read the מגילה since we are required to obey Rabbinic legislation under the rubric of לאתסור. Thatרמב”םgoes from discussing all Rabbinic mandates generally to קריאתהמגילה specifically is also significant; פוריםwas, historically, the test case in which חז”לfirst exercised their prerogative to create entirely new legislation.[20] The anti-Karaite polemical thrust of this passage also should not be ignored.[21]

Consequently, רמב”ם must accentuate the חיוב itself, the broad scope of individuals to whom it applies, and its weighty nature as evidenced by the stature of מצות which it displaces in order to underscore that the חיוב מקרא מגילה is legally justifiable. Similarly, he emphasizes that the מגילה will continue to be read in ימות המשיח, and adopts the מדרש of the ירושלמי to do so, to further bring home the point that the חיוב not only exists, but is of considerable import.

Along with simply explaining some curious choices that רמב”ם makes in his presentation of מקרא מגילה, this thesis may further assist in understanding רמב”ם’s more general jurisprudential conceptions. At the very least, these Maimonidean passages highlight the supreme, authoritative nature of חז”ל vis-à-visthe interpretation of both תורה שבכתב and תורה שבעל פה.

[1] I thank my friend Avinoam J. Stillman and my teacher R. David Shapiro for reviewing earlier versions of this article, which was originally published in the 2011 edition of the Maimonides School Torah Journal, Mayim Achronim.

[9] This conception finds expression in רמב”ם’s presentation of the Messianic process and subsequent era in the final two chapters of הלכות מלכים, especially יא:ג and יב:א. רמב”םalso stridently believed that no fundamental changes in the halachic system and its methodology will occur in the Messianic era, contraר’ יוחנן andרב יוסף in נדה דף סא ע”ב. In fact, a pre-requisite for enumeration in theתרי”ג for רמב”ם is that aמצוה be operative לדורות, which includes ימות המשיח. The most well known application of this principle is Rav Chayyim of Brisk’s explanation as to the absence of the commandment of זכירת יציאת מצריים in the ספר המצוות. Vide Rabbi David Shapiro’s Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik on Pesach, Sefirat ha-Omer, and Shavu’ot, Jerusalem: Urim Publications (2005), pp. 20-21.

Althoughרמב”ם does have Talmudic precedent in his assertion that natural law will not be breached inימות המשיח in the statement of שמואל that”אין בין העולם הזה לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד” (סנהדרין דף צא ע”ב) the highly original and controversial nature of the Maimonidean approach should not be glossed over, vide R. Twersky, p. 451 n231.

[10] רמב”ם explains his approach to מדרש אגדה in his introduction to פרק חלק of סנהדרין in the .פירוש המשניות

[13] Rav Soloveitchik also connected the first and last sections of הלכות מגילה, but his analysis emphasized a different aspect of the מצוה. This insight has been recorded in הררי קדם סימן ריד (ח”א עמ’ שעב-שעג).

[14] For examples of instances in which רמב”ם discusses who is and is not obligated far after the introduction of the מצוה, videהלכות ק”ש ד:א , הלכות ציצית ג:ט, הלכות ברכות ה:א, הלכות חמץ ומצה ו:י, הלכות שופר ב:א,הלכות סוכה ו:א , and הלכות חגיגה ב:א.

[20] However, the citation of the פסוק indicates that the Sages’ true authority to promulgate new commandments ultimately comes from Scripture; חז”ל’s license to expand Biblical Judaism into its Rabbinic offspring found its basis in תנ”ך.